On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
On 12/2/01 at 9:59 PM, Jack Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there are two problems with this scenario:
1) It's a PITA to look all over the place for packages.
The leaf.sf.net site is not exactly good guidance since
the packages page is empty
Jack Coates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And for this reason I'm thinking that versioning in the filename is a
convenient nice-to-have. If the version and author attributes are kept
on the web server that should be enough to enable accurate downloads,
though there are still troubleshooting issues.
There is a new development image available for Oxygen/glibc 2.1.
Here are some things that are new with this image:
* Configuration file loading fixed (or should be)...
* glibc now a package on disk (libc.lrp)
* busybox statically linked
* now uses fget (statically linked) instead of snarf (for
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
How do your fields compare against those stored by rpm deb?
A quick cruise over to debian and rpm.org produced this for me
(Sorry, Dave, if I'm speaking out of turn)
rpm debianDave
NamesourceName
Version Version
Seems like there are a lot of people who want to compile their own
kernel, and know how, but then don't realize they need two LRP patches
and maybe others.
I've patched the 2.2.20 source with all LRP patches and with Openwall,
and would like to stick it somewhere for download. But methinks 20M
David Douthitt wrote:
I have a strong faith in the current format - even if we package up
newfangledsoftware 2.2.2 as a *.lrp with glibc 2.0, it'll still work
in that LRP 2.9.4 somebody's running.
If we add a new file (*.desc) to the /var/lib/lrpkg directory, the
package STILL works in
Should we maybe start a sub-project to work on a new packaging format?
I've
got a lot of various ideas on possible formats and features, but no time
to
play with them :
I have a strong faith in the current format - even if we package up
newfangledsoftware 2.2.2 as a *.lrp with glibc 2.0,
David Douthitt wrote:
About all that can be asked for is a comment-like tag that package
creators use to detail dependencies.
Agreed. That's what I was thinking of - comments for things the
maintainer knows of, with no guarantee that its accurate or comprehensive.
And I see what you mean
Charles Steinkuehler wrote:
Most of the feature issues can be cobbled around by adding more
package.whatever files to the package format, but I'd REALLY like to have
a way of cryptographically signing packages, in preperation for making
trusted downloading of packages an available feature at
You could use the two-file format already used for things like the Linux
kernel, or if you really wanted, just wrap both files up like this -
create a standard *.lrp file, then you could wrap it up into a *.srp
file (Secure LRP) with a digital signature.
Then the unpackers would have to add
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, David Douthitt wrote:
Seems like there are a lot of people who want to compile their own
kernel, and know how, but then don't realize they need two LRP patches
and maybe others.
I've patched the 2.2.20 source with all LRP patches and with Openwall,
and would like to
On 12/3/01 at 4:54 PM, Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hmm...looks like a new file format, smells like a new file format...
Bah. Not really. The file format is all in the *.lrp package, and
the package contents remain the same. Just give it a new wrapper,
call it *.srp, and it
On 12/3/01 at 7:16 PM, Jeff Newmiller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think it is more worthwhile to explain to people with
such interest what steps are required to modify the
standard kernel.
Trouble is, people just seem to keep missing the LEAF Web Site, or the
FAQ, or the Documentation section
There is a new release of Dachstein-CD available in the usual locations:
slow:
http://lrp.steinkuehler.net/files/diskimages/dachstein-CD/
fast:
http://lrp1.steinkuehler.net/files/diskimages/dachstein-CD/
http://lrp2.steinkuehler.net/files/diskimages/dachstein-CD/
The main changes include the
Are you looking for a Debian/slink virtual machine that could be run
on your 2.2.15 (and over) main linux box ?
Where you could have root privilege on a non root account ?
Are you tired of booting floppies to test new LEAF packages ?
Here is the answer: user-mode-linux
15 matches
Mail list logo
